Transferring Non-Responsibility

Pedro Merlussi, Gabriel de Andrade Maruchi

Resumo


The Direct Argument argues for the claim that determinism and moral responsibility are incompatible. The most controversial assumption of the argument is the thought that "not being responsible for" transfers across conditionals: if no one is (even partially) morally responsible for the fact that p is true, and no one is (even partially) morally responsible for the fact that pq is true, then no one is (even partially) morally responsible for the fact that q is true. Here we argue that the principle is true if one accepts a truth-maker account of the relationship between non-responsibility and propositions. While non-responsibility transfers across conditionals, one upshot of the truth-maker account is that it allows one to be responsible for necessary truths.


Palavras-chave


Responsabilidade moral; Incompatibilismo

Texto completo:

PDF/A (English)

Referências


Campbell, J. K. (2007). Free will and the necessity of the past. Analysis 67 (2), 105–111.

Davidson, D. (1963).Actions, reasons, and causes. Journal of Philosophy 60 (23), 685–700.

Sa, D. L. de (2009).Disjunctions, conjunctions, and their truthmakers. Mind 118 (470), 417–425.

Earman, J. (1986). A Primer on Determinism. D. Reidel.

Frankfurt, H. G. (1969). Alternate possibilities and moral responsibility. Journal of Philosophy 66 (23), 829–839.

Goldman, A. I. (1970). A Theory of Human Action. Princeton University Press.

Hermes, C. (2013). A Counterexample to A. Philosophia (United States) 42 (2), 387–389.

Huemer, M. (2000). Van inwagen’s consequence argument. Philosophical Review 109 (4), 525–544.

Ravizza, M. (1994). Semi-compatibilism and the transfer of non-responsibility. Philosophical Studies 75 (1-2), 61–93.

Restall, G. (1996). Truthmakers, entailment and necessity. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 74 (2), 331–340.

Robinson, M. (2016). Truthmakers, Moral Responsibility, and an Alleged Counterexample to Rule A. Erkenntnis 81 (6), 1333–1339.

Sartorio, C. (2017). Frankfurt-style examples. In G. Meghan, T. Kevin, and L. Neil (Eds.), Routledge Companion to Free Will., pp. 179–190. Routledge.

Schlosser, M. (2019). Agency. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2019 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.

Talasiewicz, M., J. Odrow-Sypniewska, W. Wciórka, and P. Wilkin (2013). Do we need a new theory of truthmaking? some comments on disjunction the- sis, conjunction thesis, entailment principle and explanation. Philosophical Studies 165 (2), 591–604.

Turner, P. R. (2014). Truth and moral responsibility. In F. B. M. Dell’Utri and S. Caputo (Eds.), New Advances in Causation, Agency, and Moral Responsibility. Cambridge Scholars Press.

van Inwagen, P. (1983). An Essay on Free Will. Oxford University Press.

van Inwagen, P. (2008). The consequence argument. In P. V. Inwagen and D. W. Zimmerman (Eds.), Metaphysics: The Big Questions. Blackwell.

Vihvelin, K. (2013). Causes, Laws, and Free Will: Why Determinism Doesn’t Matter. Oup Usa.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.5007/1677-2954.2019v18n3p285

          

 

 

ethic@. Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, SC, Brasil, eISSN 1677-2954

Licença Creative Commons
This work is licensed under a  Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial-SemDerivações 4.0 Internacional